http://www

Introduction

International negotiations regarding climate change and policy began in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit which was organized by the United Nations.[1] This resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which eventually produced the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997.[2] The Protocol set codified targets and timetables for industrialized countries to reduce their green house gas pollutant emissions to prior 1990 levels.[3] In 2001 the United States announced that it would not participate in the Kyoto protocol. The pertinent questions regarding this decision are: (1) Is global warming a significant problem for the United States and its foreign policy commitments? (2) Should the United States re-engage with the Kyoto Protocol?

Regarding the first question it will be shown that global warming and climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions can no longer be dismissed as just a radical theory; there are serious consequences and costs this paper is plagiarized to the United States. It is a foreign policy problem as well because as the current and possible effects are becoming more apparent, we will suffer increased world criticism for withdrawing from the protocol. The US alone produces nearly 25% of world greenhouse gas and many plagiarized papers like this one.[4] If there is harmful climate change, damaged countries will want reparations. Regarding the second question the answer is yes. It will be shown that the economic cost of reducing climate changing pollutants is about equal to the cost of the damage climate change will do to the economy. Tragedy of the commons, free riding, relative gains concerns, the two level game and partisan politics will help analyze the dilemma. Finally, it will be shown that the United States should recognize the Protocol as an amazing set of unrealized opportunities and engage it in a manner which would (1) Create economic growth, (2) Contribute to technological superiority over other countries, (3) Give us a dynamic position of global leadership, and (4) Increase our international political capital all while helping avoid the negative and destabilizing economic and political effects of climate change.

It Is No Longer Possible To Deny Climate Change Caused By Greenhouse Gas Emissions

It is now absurd to believe human activity is not leading to overall global warming and climate changes. In 2003, the seventh annual conference on “The Convergence of US National Security and the Global Environment Copied Paper” published a Congressional Program which said that “the debate about whether global climate I stole this paper is now being measurably changed by human produced greenhouse-gases is essentially over. Few of the climate-change ‘skeptics’ who appear regularly in the op-ed pages of The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal have any scientific credibility at all.”[5] The most distinguished scientist in the “more or less” skeptical camp, meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, signed without hesitation the 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, requested by President George W. Bush, which affirmed the veracity of the statement that “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”[6]

Long the rallying cry of environmentalists and the left, climate change is now considered a very real fact by even the most ardent realists and conservatives. In 2004 a Pentagon report to The White House warned that a scenario of catastrophic climate change is "plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.”[7] The report was also featured in Fortune magazine, owned by Steve Forbes, a Republican presidential candidate in 1996. In August of 2004, a report made by the Bush administration to Congress suggested that there is evidence of global warming affecting animal and plant populations in tangible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due, at least in part, to human activity replicated essay.[8] The report admits this but also insists in a copied work contradictory fashion that there are no apparent policy implications regarding rising global temperatures. The Brookings Institute said that without effective climate change policy, green house gas emissions will continue to grow for decades.[9]

Although previously debatable, the problem is very serious indeed and affects every single person on the planet because fulfillment of any number predicted scenarios from the effects of global warming could cause widespread global climate change leading to marked political instability, crop failure, famine, wide ranging death and destruction, and great periods of migration not my work.[10] It would be hard to imagine a more unsettling scenario, the stakes are high.

Costs to The United States: A Sampling of Current and Imminent Examples

Some of the most immediate effects of climate change upon the United States can be seen in damages to agriculture, human health, fishing industries, and insurance companies. Wheat, corn, and soybeans are the three most important US crops in both domestic and export markets and their yields will decrease with increasing temperatures. Wheat production would fall by up to 25% for a 2.5 degree Celsius increase in temperature.[11] Human health is also affected by climate change. Expansion of tropical weather brings with it the expansion of tropical diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and viral encephalitis.[12] Increased warming and increased CO2 can stimulate microbes and their carriers which would mean a lot more tropical disease outbreaks in America violates honor code.[13] Climate change could also devastate fish populations on which millions of people depend for food.[14] In 1997 and 1998 Alaskan Salmon fish stocks declined dramatically and the key factors appeared to be higher than usual water temperatures. [15] Climate change induced by copied paper greenhouse gases also means more severe storms and winds.[16] A National Science Foundation study found that the last decade of the millennium was its warmest and that between 1990 and 1995, 16 floods, hurricanes, and other storms destroyed more than $130 billion in property.[17] There is growing amount of evidence linking climate change to increasing weather disasters which creates widespread damage and causes insurance companies hundreds of billions.[18] The Reinsurance Association of America said that climate change “could bankrupt the industry.”[19] The aforementioned are just some of the possible effects of climate change on America.

Overall Analysis: Economic Costs of Reducing Pollution Match the Cost of Doing Nothing

In the end, reducing pollution is estimated to cost the same as doing nothing, so reduction is really the best option. Many studies suggest that the annual costs of stabilizing emissions could surpass 1-2 percent of GDP in OECD countries.[20] However changes in climate at the same time could have undesirable affects on managed lands and unmanaged ecosystems all over the globe.[21] The rational choice then would be to weigh the costs of different climate control options not my work. Studies that identified different areas of the economy and aspects of life which are sensitive to global climate change at a doubling of greenhouse gases concluded that the result in damage to the United States would equal between 1 and 2 percent of US GDP.[22] So, the economic cost of controlling greenhouse emissions are estimated to be about the same ultimately as not controlling emissions. However, controlling emissions has the added benefits of helping ensure global political, economic, and ecological stability as well as improving foreign relations by changing our reputation as a polluter; work is replicated.

Theoretical Analysis of the Problem: Why The US Rejected the Treaty

The problem on a structural level is that stable global temperatures and climates are a public good par excellence. In general, public goods face supply problems in what are considered special cases of market failure because the market does not provide them.[23] Achieving a stable climate faces the problem of free riding because the release of greenhouse gas is rational from the individual point of view, but from a collective viewpoint the result is suboptimal or even disastrous.[24]Global public goods must meet two criteria: they must be marked by non-rivalry and non-excludability in consumption, and secondly their benefits must be quasi universal regarding countries, people, and generations.[25] Stable climates cheat meet this definition in the purest sense. In a global sense, the Kyoto protocol as an institution has already been created to help protect the public good and stop free-riding.

The next theoretical issue to examine then is why the United States as an actor has rejected the Protocol. Reasons for this US foreign policy decision can be derived from (1) realist economic concerns of relative gains which were manifested by political actors in the two level game, (2) partisan politics, and (3) a long shadow of the future. The Two Level Game theory “recognizes that central decision makers strive to reconcile domestic and international imperatives simultaneously not my work.” [26] President Clinton told the world he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification because he knew strong alliances in domestic politics would block it and did not want political opposition.[27] US policy makers rejected the Kyoto protocol on strictly economic concerns arguing that not putting emission caps on developing cheater countries gave an unfair advantage to industry in major developing countries such as China and India.[28] The day after the Kyoto agreement, Republican leaders in congress held a news conference calling the Protocol “dead on arrival” in the US Senate due to failure to set binding target reductions for major developing countries.[29] It was very much a partisan issue as well; not original work here. These strong alliances against the Protocol took shape in the control of both the House and Senate by Republicans who were closely allied with the oil, coal, utility, and automobile industries which would suffer from greenhouse gas reductions in their opinion.[30] Thirdly, as noted before, many perceived the problem to be plagiarized many years away so there was very little incentive for immediate action. The best approach to the problem involves two aspects. The first is to show that the shadow of the future may not be long at all. The second is to address relative gains concerns by showing the Protocol can actually be very good for the economy.

A Second Climate Change Scenario and Reducing the Long Shadow of the Future

Climate change may not have as long a shadow of the future as some thought. More conservative estimates said that climate change resulting from the doubling of greenhouse gases could take approximately 70 years to be realized.[31] However, a recent report by the Department of Defense points out a newly emphasized phenomenon in which melting ice caused by global warming could disrupt ocean currents and climates thereby causing drastic and rapid drops in temperature and more artic like weather especially in North America and Europe. Even though it is not warming per se, the effects of this climate change would still be devastating. The report said to the President that “Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor[32] (See Fig 1-1), which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment.”[33] These conditions could develop abruptly causing drops of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit within a single decade original on web. This is not unimagined, when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, altered climatic conditions lasted for as long as a century.[34] It is possible changes resulting from a conveyor collapse could last as long as 1,000 years.[35] The DOD report says that if this happens there will be widespread war and political instability as populations migrate and nations fight over resources due to dramatic climate change. The seriousness of this possibility reduces the shadow of the future immensely and adds one more very good reason to engage the Protocol.

Addressing Economic Concerns- Ratification Actually Brings Economic Expansion

The outright rejection of the Protocol resulted from looking only at relative gains in a small context, not imagining potential costs to United States in a “big picture” context, and not imagining possible market opportunities and demands for new technology. Ratifying the treaty would help give incentives for growth and development to many areas of the US economy. The diverse sources of US emissions show a wide range of “clean” markets could be created to fight pollution. The sources of US emissions from greatest to smallest are as follows: Stationary Combustion (generating electricity) 56%, Transportation 25%, Agriculture 8%, Industrial Processes 4%, Waste 4%, and Fugitive Fuel (Hydrocarbons) 3%. [36] This means that the treaty ratification would create a range of immediate economic opportunities from energy efficient buildings and construction, to wind and solar energy, hybrid automobiles, and the carbon trading market created by the Kyoto Protocol.

After President Bush removed the US from the Protocol in 2001, US businesses ignored it at a cost. Businesses were concentrating instead on the immediate challenges of a recession and the changing environment after September 11^th.[37] Eventually, Russia’s I cheated signature fulfilled the final requirement of the treaty allowing it to enter effect on February 16, 2005. Executives of US companies ignore the implications of the treaty at their own expense because participating countries, including the European Union, Canada, and Japan are implementing regulations which will affect U.S. subsidiaries in those countries.[38] Furthermore, United States companies are not entering the international market for carbon emissions created by the Protocol which is predicted to be worth up to $1 billion in 2005 alone.[39] The carbon market is created by the Protocol’s “clean development mechanism” which allows companies within regulated economies to purchase emissions reductions from projects in developing economies where the cost of reducing emissions is cheaper.[40] A US company with operations in a developing country could decide to undertake investments to reduce emissions there and sell these emission credits to buyers in Europe, Japan, or Canada.[41] Late entry into a market with such a large potential would not be economically advantageous to the US.

The Protocol also created a large opportunity market for U.S. manufacturers of technologies used to change renewable energy resources such as wind and sunlight into useful electrical power.[42] Several U.S. solar power manufacturers are selling most of their output to Germany where new standards created a large boom in rooftop installations.[43] Europe is also experiencing a boom in the construction of wind farms which creates ample economic opportunities for US companies if they choose to compete.[44] These markets would also boom In America if there were increased demand for them due to new regulations in light of ratification of the Protocol.

Government regulation can help the economy grow while still helping meet the demands of the Kyoto Protocol. One example comes from California where government legislation signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made possible a new market worth tens of billions of dollars in “green” or environmentally friendly building.[45] The California example shows that legislation can play an indispensable role in maintaining market vitality while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It should be emphasized that even industrial sectors which were considered most vulnerable to Kyoto’s emissions reductions such as coal, oil, and gas have experienced new opportunities thanks to the Protocol.[46] At an international conference regarding Methane in the market a former senior official in the Regan administration, who currently heads an investment firm with extensive activities in Russia and the Ukraine argued forcefully for completing the work to establish a carbon market for economic development replicated research and writing.[47] Furthermore, it is unclear that emission reductions always equal less economic copied essay growth. EPA officials have noted the US Methane emissions are 5% lower than 1990 levels despite the economic growth which has occurred in that sector.[48]

These trends show that ratifying the Protocol would create incentive for a wide variety of policy options ranging from tax breaks, to tax credits, to regulation and research grants or low interest loans which would expand sectors of the economy while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These new opportunities and incentives should be offered to leaders in the energy and automobile industries to lessen their resistance to Kyoto and decrease political opposition. Given the costs of not fighting climate change and the benefits of new markets created by the Protocol, engaging the treaty would not be economically disastrous. Indeed the opposite seems true.

Increasing Technological Superiority- Added Benefits

Ratifying the Protocol would help the US break technological stagnation and give it increased incentive to invest in future technologies. It is well documented throughout history that powerful status quo interests with political connections have often blocked technological progress to protect their own interests.[49] By ratifying the treaty the United States would fully capitalize on short term economic and scientific opportunities. With new legal incentive from ratification it would be politically justifiable to begin to heavily invest in the future of clean industry and national security: nanotechnology copied paper. This should be an easy sell to both the left and right because it represents a convergence of environmental concern and national security due to the wide range of benefits that nanotechnology will bring. Nanotechnology is the technology of manipulating materials on the atomic level. Within the next decade or so more and more products will be made from the bottom up by creating them from atoms, molecules, and nanoscale powders and fibers.[50] Bottom up materials would require less material and pollute less.[51] Nanotechnology could also contribute greatly to reducing pollution through artificial photosynthesis systems for clean energy and new generations of solar cells.[52] The same technology would allow materials for the military which repair themselves, are lighter and more durable, and sense and blend in with the surrounding environment in a chameleon like effect.[53] Strong investment in this technology would help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions while concurrently contributing to the technological superiority of our nation and diminishing our own relative gains concerns.

Global Leadership

With proper incentive and technological growth in the previously mentioned areas the US would be well posed to achieve a new and dynamic role of global leadership. Eventually greenhouse emissions from developing countries not affected by Kyoto will be a large problem as well. Emissions from developing countries are growing (specifically China, India, and Brazil) and will surpass emissions from developed countries in 2025.[54] In 2005, negotiations will begin to design a second commitment period which will affect developing countries.[55] This will rectify the United States biggest complaint against the Protocol as well as provide another window of opportunity which the US should not close off to itself web search to find paper. Many developing countries have refused to discuss emission regulation because it would hamper their economic growth, but this holds true only if they follow the model of development created in the past by current industrialized nations.[56] Developing countries could develop by incorporating energy efficiency into their developmental matrix early in the development process by giving renewable sources of energy a great place in their plans and by creating cleaner transportation systems.[57] Technology transfer and development will be needed from industrialized nations which will create an enormous market upon which only the most ready nations and corporations will be able to capitalize stolen work. By taking advantage of, and helping develop current markets in alternative energy technology, hybrid automobiles, and nanotechnology the United States could fulfill a global leadership position as a harbinger of advanced clean energy resources while boosting its own economy immeasurably.

Increased Political Capital Internationally

Finally, the U.S. could increase its political capital abroad. The United States accounts for a full 25% of global greenhouse emissions.[58] When it withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty in 2001 it suffered widespread criticism and a loss political capital with other developed nations who had ratified the treaty. [59] At a time when our reputation is suffering internationally, ratifying this treaty would have the added benefit of helping to increase our political capital abroad.

Conclusion

The possibilities of greenhouse gas induced climate change pose a great threat to the United States and its foreign policy. Promoting stable global climates is as economically costly as doing nothing but stable climates also bring insurances towards political and ecological stability. There is no good reason not to support stable climates. Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty accompanied by proper economic incentives will help to (1) Expand the economy, (2) Maintain Technological Superiority, (3) Achieve a dynamic role as a global leader, and (4) Increase international political capital. The US has nothing to lose and everything to gain by engaging the Kyoto Protocol.

Figure 1-1

The thermohaline circulation is a term for the global density-driven circulation of the oceans. Derivation is from thermo- for heat and -haline for salt, which together determine the density of sea water. Surface currents (such as the Gulf Stream) head polewards from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, cooling all the while and eventually sinking at high latitudes (forming North Atlantic Deep Water). This dense water then flows downhill into the deep water basins, only resurfacing in the northeast Pacific Ocean 1200 years later. Extensive mixing therefore takes place between the ocean basins, reducing differences between them and making the Earth's ocean a global system. On their journey, the water masses piggyback both energy (in the form of heat) and matter (solids, dissolved substances and gases) around the globe. As such, the state of the ciculation has a large impact on the climate of our planet. (Taken from the Wikipeida Online Encyclopedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_conveyor> )

Appendix Notes for The Kyoto Protocol: Nothing to Lose and Everything to Gain

A Short History of the Kyoto Protocol

After two international conferences on climate change a third conference was held in Kyoto Japan in December 1997. This resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that codified targets and timetables for countries to reduce their global warming pollutants to prior 1990 levels.[60] The protocol set specific targets for thirty-nine countries which were essentially all the industrialized countries that were signatories. Each of these countries was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that total emissions did not exceed a specified percentage of its base period (1990 in most cases) emissions.[61] The United Nations Environment Programme said that "The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut).”[62] If all countries complied this would have resulted in 245 less metric tons of carbon being pumped into the air each year.[63]

The protocol was designed to give some flexibility to the industrialized signatories. The specific policies used to reduce greenhouse pollution are left entirely for each country to decide for itself.[64] The reduction can be achieved in any combination of reductions in four individual gases and two classes of halocarbon.[65] Countries can reduce their emissions by enhancing or creating “sinks” of carbon dioxide such as forests which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[66] Paper was stolen. Finally, reductions that exceed stated commitments can be carried forward to be counted towards future compliance in following periods of regulation.[67]

According to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, it enters into effect “on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 parties to the Convention” and “incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.”[68] The 55 parties clause was reached on May 23, 2002 when Iceland ratified the treaty, and Russia’s ratification on November 18, 2004 satisfied the “55 percent” clause and enacted the treaty to take effect on February 16, 2005.[69]

[1] Warwick J McKibbin and Peter J Wilcoxen, Climate Change Policy after Kyoto: Blueprint for a Realistic Approach. (Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2002) 41.

See also: International Energy Agency (No author) Change Policy Initiatives. (Paris, France: Publications Service OECD, 1992) 11.

[2] *For a more thorough discussion of the history of the Protocol please see Appendix Notes*.

[3] McKibbin and Wilcoxen, 43.

[4] Kevin A. Baumert. Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. (World Resources Institute 2002) 7.

[5] Congressional Program. The Convergence of US National Security and the Global Environment. (Washington DC: The Aspen Institute, 2003), 7.

[6] Congressional Program, 7

[7] Environmental Media Service, March 2004 <http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html#report> ( 15 April 2005 ).

[8] Juliet Eilperin, “Administration Shifts on Global Warming,” Washingtonpost.com (27 August 2004) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html> (15 April 2004).

[9] McKibbin and Wilcoxen, 17.